My experience is that when I get it to two choices, whenever I pick the lesser (but cheaper) I end up wishing I had gotten the upscale version almost immediately.
Skip a meal out or two, and get something which will make you not second guess yourself as relentlessly.
Just a heads up, even though it only has a 6pin (that is a reference PCB), it will probably overclock really well. Without changing the power settings I've overclocked the boost on my card to about 100mhz (2100 mhz total) and the RAM (Still going up, ran out of time) was boosting to 8358mhz. My Asus is 6pin, and these are the settings I got to last night before I called it a night, it was hitting 72C on full load.1060 is a beast. worth the money and the PNY look elegance too.
Everyone says that, and everyone is wrong. There hasn't been a single review that has shown more than the 10% difference in performance you would expect from the difference in shader count, even in traditionally RAM-hungry games. Given the advances in compression techniques over last gen, it seems like 3 GB in the 1060 is effectively equal to the 4 GB in the 980.6GB is a very good idea, 3GB a bad move
And yet the difference between the two 1060 versions remains narrower than the price gap. Sure, you might have to turn down a setting or two, especially with next year's games, but why is it considered normal and expected to lower a couple of settings on a less expensive card due to a lower clock speed or fewer shaders but absolutely unforgivable when it's because of less VRAM?My battlefield 4 game, which I play TDM (so not the large maps) are already using on average 2.8GB of VRAM.
Pretty much 3GB isn't a smart idea unless you have a very tight budget.
EVGA may release a backplate which would put them at the same price. How's msi's customer service?
And yet the difference between the two 1060 versions remains narrower than the price gap. Sure, you might have to turn down a setting or two, especially with next year's games, but why is it considered normal and expected to lower a couple of settings on a less expensive card due to a lower clock speed or fewer shaders but absolutely unforgivable when it's because of less VRAM?
I'll never understand why people care about stuff like this. To me, what matters is:
3) Nothing else
The 1060 3 GB represents a value proposition that's miles better than a used 970 or 980 and handily beats the RX 480 4 GB in almost every game, yet is universally dismissed because 3 GB "isn't enough" for modern games from a philosophical standpoint, even though the performance in modern games shows that it clearly is.
Micro-stuttering is/was an issue with SLI / Crossfire. What you're describing is plain old stuttering from needing to swap out textures. It only occurs in a few games, and even then turning down a couple of settings slightly will fix it. You'll still be running higher settings than a 970, btw. In fact, with Pascal's more efficient compression techniques, 3 GB on the 1060 is effectively MORE memory than 3.5 on the 970. The 1060 is superior in every way and can be had brand new with factory warranty for the same price as a used 970, yet people still recommend the objectively inferior card because "OMG not having enough memory is the WORST THING EVER!" The enthusiast community has lost our collective minds when it comes to VRAM.
Because there's a massive price difference and the 1060 3G is a much better value than a used 970 or 980.Why are you so triggered about one person recommending a GTX 970/980 instead? Plus, if we're "enthusiasts" then why would we settle for less with the 3GB card opposed to the bigger and better 6GB card? This is Hardforum after all...
It's more like $60 from what I've seen, but even $40 represents a different price tier, and in past generations was the difference between a normal and Ti or X card with bigger performance gaps than the one between the 1060 6G and 3G.Anyway...most people are recommending getting the 6GB version of the GTX 1060 over the 3GB version which entirely makes sense. There are some games already surpassing 3GB VRam at 1080p and will continue increasing over the next couple years which is usually how long most "enthusiasts" keep a video card. I'd rather spend an extra $30-$40 to have peace of mind of not having to worry about VRam for the duration I have the card.
So what you're saying is that you're right and every reviewer and the entire enthusiast crowd are the ones who are wrong? Okay.....If $200 is your budget, the 1060 3G is a great value, yet every reviewer and the entire enthusiast community ignores it out of a misguided feeling that a memory bottleneck makes a card unacceptable when no one bats an eye at bigger drops in performance for any other reason. It's illogical and represents bad advice.
Actually most reviews I've seen on Youtube don't indicate the 1060 3GB is a bad deal. It doesn't beat the 6GB version, but it can match it with some overclocking on most titles.So what you're saying is that you're right and every reviewer and the entire enthusiast crowd are the ones who are wrong? Okay.....