NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 official performance leaked

So people keep talking about the price, what about the electricity bill and heating mitigation? Sure that varies greatly from place to place but the overall cost of ownership should affect your purchase decisions.
 
1. GTX 1060 is *not* a paper launch. Please quit saying that it is, it damages your credibility.
2. GTX 1060 is all well and good, but I'm not paying $250 for a graphics card. I'd really like to know what nVidia has planned for the $200 price point.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
It was paper launched, you're right.
Click to expand...

So you'd prefer that everyone keep on speculating about the card instead of having actual specs?

Everyone knew the cards were coming anyway...

This "paper lauch" complaint has become banal
 
I expect the 1060 vs RX 480 to be 10% faster in DX11 games, 15% faster in Gameworks games, and equal or slower in DX12/Vulkan gams. It is half of a 1080 and the RX 480 isn't exactly half the speed of a 1080. But I have a hunch that the 1060's can't be found anyway, and nobody is going to spend $300 for a Founder Edition 1060. So whoever supplies more RX 480's and 1060's will win.
 
heatlesssun said:
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.
Click to expand...

if i lived in california definitely the power draw would off set the price, but being in washington state electricity costs pennies for me so it'll really depend on the AIB prices for both cards to determine whats worth it or not.
 
lol daniel Chang

Oh it is then.... whooops guess maybe the 480 will fare better against 1060 than these initial hairworks and max AA benchmarks are showing

It's clear that the benchmarks "leaked" are trying to gimp the 480 in any way possible. They did this by maxing out AA to unrealistic levels that resulted in even the 1060 showing 40 something fps. Who in their right mind would be excited about buying a new gpu showing 40 something fps? The only reason those benches were shown was bc the 1060 was gimped slightly less than the 480 at max AA bc the 480 is low on ROP count. People arent going to max out AA on the 1060 card and play at 44 fps avg, they are going to adjust settings to achieve greater than 60fps for sure, and at those realisticly playable settings the 1060 vs 480 numbers are going to look a lot different and probably closer.
 
Last edited:
DukenukemX said:
I expect the 1060 vs RX 480 to be 10% faster in DX11 games, 15% faster in Gameworks games, and equal or slower in DX12/Vulkan gams. It is half of a 1080 and the RX 480 isn't exactly half the speed of a 1080. But I have a hunch that the 1060's can't be found anyway, and nobody is going to spend $300 for a Founder Edition 1060. So whoever supplies more RX 480's and 1060's will win.
Click to expand...
I don't care about electricity bill I care about heat the extra draw brings to a table. I don't need to heat up my rooms unless it's winter.
 
Reports indicate that the GTX 1060 will be the same price as the RX 480 over here. Generally slightly faster for the same money while being cooler and cheaper to run sounds like a winner to me.
 
The 1060 is going to be a great 1080P card , but will likely cost closer to $300 for at least 2 months after release. Since 1060 and 480 are targeted at 1080P gaming I would like to see a comparison of the $200 4gb 480 against the $280 1060.

I am upgrading from a gtx 770 and think 4gb will be fine @1080P. I plan to upgrade to bigger gpu in 1-2 years when second gen VR arrives anyway.
 
sleepybp said:
The 1060 is going to be a great 1080P card , but will likely cost closer to $300 for at least 2 months after release.
Click to expand...

Agreed, especially with the price hikes to better variations of the cards. I honestly don't know why reference designs still exist. I don't see why you would buy one. Some people may mod them with water cooling, but doesn't EVGA and MSI already offer good water cooled versions out of the box? I'll wait for real benchmarks, but I think this will be a dud for those looking to upgrade from a 970. It will probably just be a bit faster and not worth the money. Those of us with upper mid range cards from last gen aren't getting any real good options in the same price range to upgrade to. We'll either have to continue using what we already have or jump up another tier.

Unless, or course, the 1060 is a good performer. But I doubt it.
 
Flogger23m said:
but I think this will be a dud for those looking to upgrade from a 970.
Click to expand...

You don't "upgrade" from one generation's Tier 2 card to the next gen's tier 3 card. If you have a 970, you look at the 1070, move up, or wait another generation. Aside from maybe the GeForce 8 series (and even this is debatable), stepping down a tier for the next gen has never been a worthwhile upgrade.
 
viscountalpha said:
So people keep talking about the price, what about the electricity bill and heating mitigation? Sure that varies greatly from place to place but the overall cost of ownership should affect your purchase decisions.
Click to expand...


The ONLY people who worry over electricity cost differences when choosing cards are people who need to rely on that to justify breaking toward their favorite brand. It works, it got a lot of people to pick a 970 over a 390, and now, when they play games they can be secure in the knowledge that in dx12/vulkan titles their card performs much worse on average when it comes to PLAYING GAMES, but non NON GAME PLAYING metric, perf/watt is better and that REALLY helps out with the pc gaming...


There is a good chance the 1060 is going to be a better performing card, that would be a far more legitimate concern at a given price point.


Once someone starts digging into the number of hours gamed per week, then calculating some 20-40w difference in energy cost over the coarse of a year to justify a card, they are so far stuck up their favored brands @ss it's hopeless.

Cut the pretense, say you prefer a brand because they made it, and choose.
 
buttons said:
Based on my history with the 7970 or 290 I also believe the RX 480 will age better then a 1060 even if they match in benchmarks today.
Click to expand...

mid to low-end range cards doesn't age precisely well.. HD7970 was considered a great 2560x1440 performer card when was high-end, almost no reason to run it at 1920x1080, in fact it used to perform poorly at that resolution then was rebranded as 280X for great 1920x1080 performance, then actually is just adequate 1080P performance not anything great but not so bad... with the 290X was a similar case, it was a great 4K performer you know "yaaaii DA titan killaaah" then time later great 2560x1440 performer and actually just somewhat average performance at that resolution and will now obsoleted by the 480X as a great 1080P but poor 2560x1440 performer..

So with all of this shit talked, how much do you think the RX 480 will remain as a great 1080P card and how well will that card age?. can you say the HD 7850 have aged in the same good way as the HD 7970?.. mid to low range card doesn't age well and are easily obsoleted within a year or so period of launch..

at the moment the GTX 1060 start to being a crap performer it will be already replaced by a next gen of cards and the same will happen to the RX 480 both will be fastly obsolete as it's happening to the good old 280X/HD7970 actually..
 
tybert7 said:
The ONLY people who worry over electricity cost differences when choosing cards are people who need to rely on that to justify breaking toward their favorite brand. It works, it got a lot of people to pick a 970 over a 390, and now, when they play games they can be secure in the knowledge that in dx12/vulkan titles their card performs much worse on average when it comes to PLAYING GAMES, but non NON GAME PLAYING metric, perf/watt is better and that REALLY helps out with the pc gaming...


There is a good chance the 1060 is going to be a better performing card, that would be a far more legitimate concern at a given price point.


Once someone starts digging into the number of hours gamed per week, then calculating some 20-40w difference in energy cost over the coarse of a year to justify a card, they are so far stuck up their favored brands @ss it's hopeless.

Cut the pretense, say you prefer a brand because they made it, and choose.
Click to expand...

In my case my wife and I are upgrading to ultra-wide 1440 monitors and two RX 480s in mGPU configuration for two computers is almost 1000 watts on one circuit. I don't need to justify buying nVidia after being with AMD for a decade. AMD has no usable cards for my usage. Sucks to be them, I guess.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
So, enabling 2xSSAA causes the GTX 960 to nearly double the fraemrate? Nice trick, huh?
Click to expand...

TPU is a 2GB 960. Can someone find out 4GB performance a 1080p? Any bets it's significantly higher than the 2GB version? And 2x SSAA is obviously going to affect all the numbers across the board.



I found this video, granted it's a 1291 mhz so a 120 mhz overclock, but look at the performance without 2x ssaa @ 1080p, that's 42 fps.
 
Araxie said:
mid to low-end range cards doesn't age precisely well.. HD7970 was considered a great 2560x1440 performer card when was high-end, almost no reason to run it at 1920x1080, in fact it used to perform poorly at that resolution then was rebranded as 280X for great 1920x1080 performance, then actually is just adequate 1080P performance not anything great but not so bad... with the 290X was a similar case, it was a great 4K performer you know "yaaaii DA titan killaaah" then time later great 2560x1440 performer and actually just somewhat average performance at that resolution and will now obsoleted by the 480X as a great 1080P but poor 2560x1440 performer..

So with all of this shit talked, how much do you think the RX 480 will remain as a great 1080P card and how well will that card age?. can you say the HD 7850 have aged in the same good way as the HD 7970?.. mid to low range card doesn't age well and are easily obsoleted within a year or so period of launch..

at the moment the GTX 1060 start to being a crap performer it will be already replaced by a next gen of cards and the same will happen to the RX 480 both will be fastly obsolete as it's happening to the good old 280X/HD7970 actually..
Click to expand...
Not quite. You are talking to owners that keep their cards for longer than a single generation. So being obsoleted (greatly exaggerated by the way) by the next generation means absolutely nothing as they wouldn't be upgrading anyway.

And by the by, AMD uses a metric as some sites do that guaranteed most here hate: 30FPS is the avg needed to be considered at the given resolution. So when AMD states the FuryX is a 4K card they believe it to be able to maintain 30fps. I find it too funny how so few here ever picked that up.
 
I doubt it beats RX480 on Ashes, just saying. That game is massively optimized for AMD.
 
Nor Doom with Vulcan - Rx 480 will probably stuff the 1060 there. Then games like Quantum Break, FarCry Primal, WarHammer DX 12 . . .
 
bugleyman said:
1. GTX 1060 is *not* a paper launch. Please quit saying that it is, it damages your credibility.
2. GTX 1060 is all well and good, but I'm not paying $250 for a graphics card. I'd really like to know what nVidia has planned for the $200 price point.
Click to expand...
Crap... 200 and sub 200 cards struggle even at 1080 lots of times, but the rumor is the 3gb 2060 could be priced around 150.
 
JustReason said:
Not quite. You are talking to owners that keep their cards for longer than a single generation. So being obsoleted (greatly exaggerated by the way) by the next generation means absolutely nothing as they wouldn't be upgrading anyway.

And by the by, AMD uses a metric as some sites do that guaranteed most here hate: 30FPS is the avg needed to be considered at the given resolution. So when AMD states the FuryX is a 4K card they believe it to be able to maintain 30fps. I find it too funny how so few here ever picked that up.
Click to expand...

look, a card launched as 1080P that's actually struggling at 1080P have no good aging.. precisely due the reason that the aimed audience for this card doesn't upgrade as often and RIGHT NOW those same people have to lower or disable couple of settings to stay in the average of 60fps, what kind of future proofing can have a card like that? soon it will only be able to push barely ~30FPS in next tittles. then they will have to turn down/off more settings to keep the same frame rate..

At this same date next year both GTX 1060 and RX 480 will fail to deliver any good performance, that's my point..

I simply do not see the point to buy a "new generation" card and as soon as I buy it I have to start to drop settings in most modern and demanding games to keep playable framerates, that's for me a card that will be obsolete really fast. this kind of cards only are good as stop gap or backup card nothing else.
 
primetime said:
original.jpg

Leaked benches lol!o_O
Click to expand...


upload_2016-7-12_20-44-18.png


Rise of the Tomb Raider: Performance Analysis


Also, that is the only game on the Techpowerup 480 review where you could point out this kind of discrepancy.
 
Last edited:
Araxie said:
look, a card launched as 1080P that's actually struggling at 1080P have no good aging.. precisely due the reason that the aimed audience for this card doesn't upgrade as often and RIGHT NOW those same people have to lower or disable couple of settings to stay in the average of 60fps, what kind of future proofing can have a card like that? soon it will only be able to push barely ~30FPS in next tittles. then they will have to turn down/off more settings to keep the same frame rate..

At this same date next year both GTX 1060 and RX 480 will fail to deliver any good performance, that's my point..

I simply do not see the point to buy a "new generation" card and as soon as I buy it I have to start to drop settings in most modern and demanding games to keep playable framerates, that's for me a card that will be obsolete really fast. this kind of cards only are good as stop gap or backup card nothing else.
Click to expand...
I think you totally misunderstood his point in a way. When he said aged better he was mainly speaking about driver performance improvements over time. And on that point i agree with him. Im pretty sure even my card just got a huge boost in Doom for example......stuff like that. Also those of us running more or less 4+ year old cards really dont mind turning down a settings or to....fuck thats to be expected lol! All my current games run beautifully at 1440p STILL....at least the games im using. When my card first came out it was competing against 680s if im not mistaken.....compared to 680/ 770's i think its aged quite well
 
Last edited:
Everyone needs to unbunch their panties, reviewers will have them in their hands soon enough. Any company with half a brain will put their product in favorable scenarios against their competition. The truth will be revealed soon, also the validity of these performance marks will be revealed as well, but they're most likely bull shit. That's not to say the 1060 won't be a great card, just that nvidia has incentive to peddle bull shit like any other company.
 
Saw the video on utube relating to these slides and the guy that CREATED them, they are "projected" performance. So they took a game ran on a RX480 then applied the estimated performance increase and halfed what the GTX1080 gets.
 
primetime said:
I think you totally misunderstood his point in a way. When he said aged better he was mainly speaking about driver performance improvements over time. And on that point i agree with him. Im pretty sure even my card just got a huge boost in Doom for example......stuff like that. Also those of us running more or less 4+ year old cards really dont mind turning down a settings or to....fuck thats to be expected lol! All my current games run beautifully at 1440p STILL....at least the games im using. When my card first came out it was competing against 680s if im not mistaken.....compared to 680/ 770's i think its aged quite well
Click to expand...

Yeah.. I think that's what he meant to.. seems for the past coupe gens, NVidia gets better performance initially in their drivers, with amd seems to do better later..
 
tybert7 said:
The ONLY people who worry over electricity cost differences when choosing cards are people who need to rely on that to justify breaking toward their favorite brand.
Click to expand...

I must disagree. Higher power usage may mean upgrading the PSU.
 
JustReason said:
Not quite. You are talking to owners that keep their cards for longer than a single generation. So being obsoleted (greatly exaggerated by the way) by the next generation means absolutely nothing as they wouldn't be upgrading anyway.

And by the by, AMD uses a metric as some sites do that guaranteed most here hate: 30FPS is the avg needed to be considered at the given resolution. So when AMD states the FuryX is a 4K card they believe it to be able to maintain 30fps. I find it too funny how so few here ever picked that up.
Click to expand...
Not surprising, given that AMD controls the console market. But 30 FPS generally doesn't fly in the PC gaming market, as you allude to.
 
And HardOCP continues fluffing nvidias hype, I must wonder....
 
grtitan said:
And HardOCP continues fluffing nvidias hype, I must wonder....
Click to expand...

It's almost as if HardOCP is a tech website that sometimes links to tech rumours that it's readers might be interested in.

But nah, that would be ridiculous. It must just be a secret front for Nvidia's PR department that cunningly posts occassional 'pro' AMD or 'negative' Nvidia news depending on the situation to disguise the real purpose. That makes WAY more sense, right?
 
grtitan said:
And HardOCP continues fluffing nvidias hype, I must wonder....
Click to expand...
The article was linked by a user in a community forum because they thought people might be interested in it. But I'm sure shspvr already has his NVIDIA Bux® in the mail.
 
viscountalpha said:
So people keep talking about the price, what about the electricity bill and heating mitigation? Sure that varies greatly from place to place but the overall cost of ownership should affect your purchase decisions.
Click to expand...

Because once you do the math, you realize that unless you're doing something like *coin farming where the card is running at full load 24/7, 100W difference in TDP has an irrelevant effect on your electricity bill. Being more diligent about turning off lights when you leave a room will have a bigger effect.
 
Semantics said:
I don't care about electricity bill I care about heat the extra draw brings to a table. I don't need to heat up my rooms unless it's winter.
Click to expand...

But the difference is only 30 or 40 watts tops. That is less than the light bulb in my bedroom closet. It is a complete non-factor imo. Am I wrong?
 
Decko87 said:
Everyone needs to unbunch their panties, reviewers will have them in their hands soon enough. Any company with half a brain will put their product in favorable scenarios against their competition. The truth will be revealed soon, also the validity of these performance marks will be revealed as well, but they're most likely bull shit. That's not to say the 1060 won't be a great card, just that nvidia has incentive to peddle bull shit like any other company.
Click to expand...

It's still hilarious what they get away with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top